DECODING THE ANC’s RUSSIA CONUNDRUM
An interministerial committee apparently backs moving the Brics summit to another venue as a way to sidestep the Putin-arrest drama
South Africa may yet be able to sidestep international opprobrium surrounding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s possible visit to the country in August.
On Monday, an interministerial committee (IMC) chaired by Deputy President Paul Mashatile decided that the upcoming summit of the Brics nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), set to take place in Joburg, should be moved elsewhere — ideally to China.
The committee has been seized with South Africa’s diplomatic conundrum. Back in March, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes linked to the invasion of Ukraine. As a signatory to the Rome Statute — the treaty that established the ICC — local authorities would be obliged to arrest Putin if he lands on South African soil.
South Africa is treading a fine line as it tries to maintain a nonaligned stance on the Ukraine war. But it’s found itself caught between two global powers, each pushing it to pick a side.
South Africa acceded to the Rome Statute back in 2000, codifying it in domestic law with the passage of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 in 2002.
Further complicating matters is a 2016 Supreme Court of Appeal ruling arising from the attendance of former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir at an AU summit in South Africa the year before. It concurred with a high court ruling that found South Africa’s failure to arrest Bashir — also wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity — was unlawful.
Given pending diplomatic fallout over Putin’s visit, President Cyril Ramaphosa asked Mashatile to lead the
IMC to weigh up South Africa’s options and suggest a way forward. It’ sa monumental task, not least because of the government’s — and the ruling ANC’s — clumsy handling of the
Ukraine issue so far.
For a start, Ramaphosa’s administration has proved unable to communicate its supposed nonaligned stance with any nuance. If anything, the administration and party’s actions so far suggest the country is very much on Russia’s side.
Tensions between South Africa and its second-biggest trading partner, the US, peaked last month when US ambassador Reuben Brigety told journalists he would “bet his life” that South Africa had loaded arms onto a Russian vessel, the Lady R, in Simon’s Town in December. (The US news outlet Politico may have ameliorated things when it reported last week that the Biden administration was “furious” over Brigety’s outburst, and that US officials did not think his allegations were necessarily true.)
Nonetheless, Ramaphosa had already appointed an independent panel, chaired by retired appeals court judge Phineas Mojapelo, to investigate Brigety’s allegation — which defence minister Thandi Modise has denied.
When it comes to Putin’s appearance at the summit, various sources have offered contradictory messages. Over the weekend, for example, ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula suggested to the Sunday Times that the invitation to Putin should be withdrawn.
However, a senior government source calls Mbalula’s statement “nonsensical”; because Russia is a founding member of the
Brics bloc,
Putin’s invitation cannot be withdrawn, the source says.
The ANC international relations subcommittee has weighed in too, taking a slightly different tack. It said it would be preferable for South Africa to “domesticate” the Rome Statute so as to obtain a “waiver” from the ICC. That would involve a parliamentary process to change the law — unlikely, given the conference is just two months away. So another nonstarter.
Hence the need for the IMC, which includes political heavyweights such as ministers Naledi Pandor (international relations & co-operation), Enoch Godongwana (finance), Gwede Mantashe (mineral resources & energy) and Ronald Lamola (justice & constitutional development), as well as ministers in the presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, Maropene Ramokgopa and Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma.
The FM understands the committee met on Monday to iron out its position ahead of a cabinet meeting on the issue on Wednesday.
A presentation by the department of international relations & co-operation
On the one hand, the government cannot break the country’s laws; on the other, it won’t risk Russia’s wrath by arresting Putin
(Dirco), compiled along with members of Mashatile’s office, laid out the position in which the government has found itself. On the one hand it cannot break the country’s laws; on the other, it won’t risk Russia’s wrath by arresting Putin. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has already publicly said Moscow would view an arrest of Putin as a “declaration of war”.
But the FM understands the IMC has concluded that the law has to trump all other considerations.
According to senior government sources, the IMC placed three options on the table: that Putin attend the summit virtually and send his foreign minister to attend in person; that South Africa host the entire summit virtually; or that the summit be moved to a Brics country that is not a signatory of the Rome Statute.
While it’s understood that some expressed reservations Ntshaveni in particular the consensus was to present a memo to the cabinet recommending that the summit be moved.
The cabinet was set to decide the matter at a meeting on Wednesday. The outcome was still unclear at the time of going to print.
The adoption of the recommendation will, of course, involve backtracking by Pandor. In yet another instance of the ham-fisted way Ramaphosa’s administration has handled the sensitive issue, she recently took a hardline position, categorically stating the summit would not be moved. This, despite the fact that the
IMC had not yet completed its work and was still exploring options.
However, the FM’s sources indicate that she showed herself to be more amenable to the idea at the IMC meeting.
There is a broader narrative at play, one that sources say was evident in the meeting: that South Africa should not be bowing to “Western pressure”. Those holding this view say the ICC is doing the bidding of Western countries such as the US which itself refuses to join the ICC.
The counter argument is that South Africa, having willingly signed up to the court and recognised it in domestic law, cannot backtrack particularly in light of the certainty the courts provided in the Bashir matter.
“Defying a decision of the court has huge implications,” the source says. “[If] the government wants citizens to obey the law, it can’t be seen then to be consciously violating it. There cannot be a repeat of what we did with Bashir.”
Assuming the cabinet does go for the venue change option, South Africa will need to engage with its Brics partners to find a new host.
Brazil, as a member of the court that has taken a neutral stance on Ukraine, is unlikely to step up. With India set to host the G20 summit in New Delhi in September, it is unlikely to have the capacity.
The summit could be moved to Moscow itself but that comes with security concerns.
Which leaves China. Beijing is thought to be the most viable option but a decision could only be finalised after discussions within the bloc.
Of course, a decision to move the summit would also mollify the ANC’s domestic opponents. The DA announced last week that it has already approached the courts for a declaratory order that would force the government to detain and surrender Putin to the ICC should he set foot in the country.
“The DA is seeking this declaratory order to ensure that there is no legal ambiguity relating to the procedure to be followed, and the obligations placed on the state,” said the DA’s spokesperson for justice, Glynnis Breytenbach.
Alan Winde, premier of the DA-run Western Cape, has said he would arrest Putin should he visit the province, and is prepared to face whatever backlash the move may elicit from the national government.
Ntshaveni hit back in short order, saying the province is not an independent entity and has no power to make such decisions.
But moving the summit would render this moot.
Another strong and related view emerged from the IMC discussions on Monday: that South Africa will sooner or later have to withdraw from the ICC. The dilemma over Putin is just the latest manifestation of the confusion and embarrassment that membership has caused for the ruling party.
The ANC at its national conference in December took a decision to remain in the ICC. Then, after a meeting of the party’s national executive committee in April, Ramaphosa and Mbalula both claimed the ANC had decided to quit the court. Only, this was not the decision that had been taken by the meeting, leaving the party president and secretary-general to walk back their statements. Another case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.
For now, all eyes will be on the cabinet to see if the ruling party has been able to find a way out of a crisis that could harm South Africa’s local and international standing or if it will default to further confusion.